Irrational Games announces that they will not be showing BioShock Infinite at this year's E3, and that the release of their first-person shooter sequel is being delayed until the very specific release date of February 26, 2013. Here's word:

A MESSAGE FROM KEN LEVINE

When we announced the release date of BioShock Infinite in March, we felt pretty good about the timing.

Since then, we’ve come to realize that some specific tweaks and improvements will make Infinite into something even more extraordinary. Therefore, to give our talented team the time they need, we’ve decided to move the game’s release to February 26, 2013. We wanted to let our loyal (and very patient!) fans know this as soon as possible.

I won’t kid you: BioShock Infinite is a very big game, and we’re doing things that no one has ever done in a first-person shooter. We had a similar experience with the original BioShock, which was delayed several months as our original ship date drew near. Why? Because the Big Daddies weren’t the Big Daddies you’ve since come to know and love. Because Andrew Ryan’s golf club didn’t have exactly the right swing. Because Rapture needed one more coat of grimy Art Deco.

The same principle now applies to BioShock Infinite.

What does this mean for you? It means a bit more waiting, but more importantly, it means an even better BioShock Infinite. The great can be made greater, and we owe it to both ourselves and to you, our fans, to take this opportunity. Irrational Games is one of those rare developers lucky enough to ask the people who sign the checks: “Hey, can we have a few more of those checks?”

We are also going to hold off on showing BioShock Infinite at the big events of the summer, like E3 and Gamescom. That way, the next time you see our game, it will be essentially the product we intend to put in the box. Preparing for these events takes time away from development, time we’re going to use instead to get the best version of Infinite into your hands in February.

Beamer wrote on May 9, 2012, 19:43:That picture, which people keep throwing up, is mostly idiotic, anyway. Does anyone really want to say that Doom, which was all flat, visible polygons and required criss-crossing back and forth over the same level with new monster closets opening up every time you find a new keycard, was really superior to most of what we have today?

DN3D was definitely better, but a decent amount of time later. I always considered it a competitor to Quake more than Doom, and thought it killed Quake (I kind of hated single player Quake.)

Bioshock was, as many are saying, a really cool concept with gameplay that got somewhat tiresome but, by and large, the atmosphere was enough to carry you through it. BioShock 2 was more of the same, with some cool improvements, and well worth the $5 I paid.

Beamer wrote on May 9, 2012, 19:43:but I'm pretty happy to have something that pays attention to plot and pacing now.

You are smoking crack if you think Bioshock even comes close to System Shock 2 in the "paying attention to plot and pacing" department.

Bioshock was a VERY mediocre shooter, at best, had very "straight forward" level design (on rails, as some would say), and hardly gripped you to the story at all. To top it off, it wasn't all that scary or creepy either, after the first few fights. It just didn't have the intensity of System Shock 2, IMO... plain and simple. It was so bad, that I played maybe 1/3rd of it and deleted it from my hard drive. Spiritual Successor, my ass.

You're nuts if you think that graphic looks like most System Shock 2 maps. But the second one kind of reminds me of HL or HL2.

Beamer wrote on May 9, 2012, 19:43:That picture, which people keep throwing up, is mostly idiotic, anyway. Does anyone really want to say that Doom, which was all flat, visible polygons and required criss-crossing back and forth over the same level with new monster closets opening up every time you find a new keycard, was really superior to most of what we have today?

Beamer wrote on May 9, 2012, 19:43:but I'm pretty happy to have something that pays attention to plot and pacing now.

You are smoking crack if you think Bioshock even comes close to System Shock 2 in the "paying attention to plot and pacing" department.

Bioshock was a VERY mediocre shooter, at best, had very "straight forward" level design (on rails, as some would say), and hardly gripped you to the story at all. To top it off, it wasn't all that scary or creepy either, after the first few fights. It just didn't have the intensity of System Shock 2, IMO... plain and simple. It was so bad, that I played maybe 1/3rd of it and deleted it from my hard drive. Spiritual Successor, my ass.

Yeah... that's pretty close to System Shock 2 vs. Bioshock (Level Design-wise), from what I can remember.

That picture, which people keep throwing up, is mostly idiotic, anyway. Does anyone really want to say that Doom, which was all flat, visible polygons and required criss-crossing back and forth over the same level with new monster closets opening up every time you find a new keycard, was really superior to most of what we have today?

I may have loved running up and down every wall hitting space trying to find secrets when I was 13, but I'm pretty happy to have something that pays attention to plot and pacing now. Yes, CoD does neither, no, not every game is CoD.

This was a spiritual successor to SS2. Play SS2 and tell me that BioShock isn't on rails. Just because it's less of a theme park ride than CoD doesn't mean it's not on rails.

The level design was pretty much the same as SS2's. The levels were open hubs, with different areas becoming accessible as you progressed. Like SS2, you could go back to areas you've previously cleared (though Bioshock didn't really give you any reason to).

Seems like a pretty similar situation: Levine promising groundbreaking features and gameplay, and what did we get with BioShock? An on-rails shooter with good art design and mediocre-to-bad everything else.

"On-rails" is a bit of a stretch. Bioshock was still more open-ended than the bulk of shooters. CoD is on-rails. Bioshock, not so much.

This was a spiritual successor to SS2. Play SS2 and tell me that BioShock isn't on rails. Just because it's less of a theme park ride than CoD doesn't mean it's not on rails.

Bioshock may have suffered a bit in the inevitable comparison with System Shock, and the mronic DRM was more of a headline than the game itself, but I really liked it. I even enjoyed the sequel (though admittedly I never finished it). Irrational gamesdefinitley do atmosphere well. The delay isn't much of an issue, and if it means a better game at the end then it is a welcome one.

The new setting looks extremely interesting.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” - Mahatma Gandhi

I can't recall now the hype for the original Bioshock, but from what I've been hearing about Infinite it does seem they are taking a pretty big risk as far as character interaction. No more mute hero and NPCs behind glass (or at least the main NPCs - they're still relying on the old gimmick of audio logs). Incorporating conversations during gameplay and outside of cutscenes has got to be hard to do right. And I guess they're pretty sensitive to context: depending on what you do and their mood the dialog can be completely different. Unlike in Skyrim where you can murder someone right in front of a merchant and they'll happily continue hawking their wares and making cheerful conversation.

I don't know if it'll be like Oblivion was, where they promised way more than they delivered as far as the characters, but it'll be interesting. I think they need all that extra time to put in a whole ton of if/else stuff in their dialog code.